sustainable management of surface & subsurface water of ... › researchpaper ›...

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 7, Issue 11, November-2016 302 ISSN 2229-5518

IJSER © 2016 http://www.ijser.org

Sustainable Management of Surface & Subsurface Water of HashyimiaRegionby a

Hydrogeologic Solution UnderSocial Contradictions and Terroristic

Extremism in Iraq

Najah M. Lateef, Moutaz Al Dabbas, ArkanRadi Ali &Kareem FadilAbud

Abstract: Corresponding to many social problems arisen in Iraq such as population growth, political problems of controlling terroristic croups the water dams of Tigris and Euphrates Rivers and even collapsing of Al Mosul Dam the biggest in Iraq (happening now in 2016), construction of Aliso Dam in Turkish to prevent surface water (SW) allocations entering Tigris causing a declining of water heads which leaded to stop electrical hydropower stations leaving Iraq with a sharp leakage of electricity , people migration, in addition to worse administration politics, calls for new and effective water resources management were promoted.

A hydrogeologic solution was issued by using 2D groundwater (GW) and conjunctive use models to optimize a conjunctive study for Hashyimia Region of 110km2. Saving the SW is a main objective among other available water resources like rainfall and GW exploitation provided that water requirements are completely satisfied.

Unsteady groundwater modeling process based upon the solution of finite difference approach of Laplace`s Equation required mesh design of a model domain, aquifer properties determination by pumping test analysis, model calibration to modify aquifer properties whereas the conjunctive use model required an assessment of meteorological elements, local plant diversity and water demand estimation, population counting and urban water needs to adapt an integrated water resources management.

The hydrogeologic management study based firstly upon consuming a rainfall and GW resources to satisfy the total water requirements and secondly is integrated by SW wherever and whenever is needed.

The current hydrogeologic study paved the solution to many social and ecosystem problems through encourage an opposite people immigration by satisfying their water needs and overcoming the local environmental problems such drying of swamped lands, and saving of 41mcm/ year of SW. The study revealed that previously a 3.76 cumces of SW is specified to cultivate 48% of the total area whereas the current study showed that2.45 cumces enough to cultivate the total area.

Keywords: SWR: surface water resources, confining layer,conjunctive use, SY: safe yield, WD: water demand, WL: withdrawal, WU: urban water.

—————————— ——————————

Introduction

The integrated water managements (IWRM) is defined as a promoting processof land and water

resources related coordinates management.in order to maximize the economic and social welfare without

compromising the sustainability of the environment,WSSD (2005).Merry et al (2005) studied the

weakness in the (IWRM) from the perspective of livelihood and reducing of human poverty and economic

promoting.They paper concludes an alternate definition for IWRM as involving a promotion of human

IJSER

http://www.ijser.org/



welfare, especially a poverty reduction levels, better livelihoods encouragementand balanced economic

growth with a democratic development and water management.

Najah (2006) Developed and optimum water resources management study in the basin of Al Adhiam

Region located north of Iraq, the area of 10 thousands kmP

2P was divided into four administration divisions. A

general soci-ecosystem and water management study was achieved to rearrange a surface and subsurface

water.

Silva et al (2008) identified the characteristic to originate a conjunctive use model to achieve an

IWRM.The study indicated that IWRM depends basically on the participation of both the stockholders and

decision makers. Their analytical results were presented to be accessible by non-expert as presented in the

current study.

Evan et al (2011) employed ANEMI mathematical model to overcome a water scarcity by developing the

infrastructures and a good management policies. They outlined that water scarcity originated implicitly by

internal water resources system and explicitly by soci-economic problems ana environmental changes

ecosystem.

In the current study, an optimum and integrated management of surface and subsurface water resources

are adapted by using a conjunctive use modeling technique which had been undertaken hydrogeological,

meteorologicalelements, soci-economic priorities, political circumstances and terroristic consequences.

Significance of Study

Iraq country endures in recent decades the problem of surface water scarcity issuing of

populationgrowth, political problems like acontrolling of terroristic croupson dams inside and outside Iraq,

construction of Aliso Dam in south Turkey to prevent the usualSW allocations entering Tigris River, ...etc.

Correspondingly in addition to worse political administration managements, social problems arised in

Hashymia such population migration leaving own landsdue an impact of local stream drought due to a

construction of Tyass Dam, soil water logging of Tyass sector and soil salinity resulted from groundwater

salinization. Accordingly, calls have been arisen tosearch for an alternative and necessarily water resources

to satisfy a waterdiscrepancy for critical social needs.

Geography and Topography Hashyimia area of 110kmP

2Pis a southern-east part of Babylon and is located between longitudes of 44º 36' - 44º

47' and latitudes of 32º 15′- 32º 25'. Nine streams are founded namely; Tebra, Niwedra, Hashimiya…etc to

IJSER




satisfy WD. Whereas D1 and D2are drains passing the area from the north toward the southas indicated in the location map of Fig.(1).

In general, the area appears to be flat and reduces gradually in elevation from northern east to southern west. In general the highest elevation is 25.5 m a. s. l whereas the lowest is 22.5 m a. s. l as shown in Fig.(2).

Fig.(2) Topographic Map

Fig.(1) Location Map of HashimiyaRegion Preparation of Hashyimia Area to Conjunctive Use Modeling

Conjunctive use modeling requires to dividing theareainto a number of most major factors

suchSW,geography, topography, demography, available streams, and administration divisions…etc.

Correspondingly, it is preferred to develop the conjunctive use management on the bases of dividing the

area into ten sectors referring to local streams and field tributaries namely as, JerboeyiaHashyimia,

Niwedra, Tebra, Sada,Zineyia, H3, Fayadhiya, Bazul andTyass sectors. This is shown in the agricultural

divisions of Fig.(3) and Table (1).

IJSER




Fig(3) Agricultural Sectors of Hashyimia Region

Agricultural Sectors Layout& Modeling Consideration

Since the area characterizes with a wide extents of about 110kmP

2 Pand plant diversity,the area entirely

should be discretized into a number of squaremeshes(357.142m *357.142m). (765 meshes) is the

totalnumber of meshes within a mathematical model domain of dimensions (NC = 43 * NR = 41). Where

NC and NR are a number of columns and rows respectively. Fig.(4) shows the discretization of the model

domain.

FIG.(4) Discretization of Conjunctive Use Model Domain & Mesh Design

IJSER




Table (1) presents the agricultural sectors areas in donams.

Table(1) Agricultural Sectors &SWReleases

Sector Area

(Donum)

No. of Total

meshes

SW Releases

No. of

Actual

Cultivated

Meshes

Current Surface

Water Allocation

(m3/day) /mesh

m3/s m3/day

Jerboeya 5456.71 106.95 0.8 69120 49.31 1402

Hashimiya 12801.29 250.9 0.97 83808 46.66 1796

Niwedra 5462.42 107.06 0.47 40608 58.89 689

Tebra 1641.31 32.17 0.102 8812.8 31.79 277

Sada 789.1 15.46 0.108 9331.2 14.25 655

Zineyia 1918.94 37.6 0.25 21600 35.38 610

H3 2312.8 45.3 0.091 7862.4 41.92 187

Fayadhia 2675.71 52.44 0.21 18144 52.01 349

Al-Bazul 2591.88 50.8 0.2 17280 34.16 506

Tyass 3358.85 65.83 None None

Total 765 3.76

In order to start the conjunctive use modeling in the area it is necessarily to assess the hydro-geologic

components since it represents the basics to groundwater modeling in addition tosoci-economic priorities

and unfortunatelythe political circumstances. Anyhow an optimum management needs the following basic

components:-

I) Diversity of Natural Seasonal Planting

IJSER




In spite of agriculture inHashyimia area comprises different plant crops in spite ofsuffering the problems

of unstable SW allocations due to terroristic war and political circumstances, people used to planting

summer and winter plants.

A visit to the sectors, one observes that farmers cultivate a permanent plants such as orchards of date

palms, fruits such as pomegranate, apricot, apples, orange, quince, pear, grapes, figs…etc. and seasonal

planting which comprises summer and winter cropssuch asCotton, Barley, corn, and cotton.

II) Annual RainfallEstimation

Table (2) includes the average monthly rainfall of 35 years historical data.

Table (2) Average Monthly Rainfall in Hashyimia Area

Month OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP Total

Rainfall,

mm

4.4 20.4 27 22 14 13.3 12.3 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.2 116.6mm

III) Available Surface Water Releases

The water authority specified a certain releases for the nine agricultural sectors as shown in Table (1)

with a total quantity of 3.76mP

3P/sec whereas Tyass sector is left without water allocation and uncultivated.

IV) Groundwater Model Conceptualization &Safe Yield Estimation

The optimum management requires a good figure of the safe yield (SY) of the unconfined aquifer within

the model domain. Correspondingly, a groundwater model has been:-

1- Written in Fortran Language which represents a developed copy to the program of Prickett and

Lonngquist(1971) to be used for SY evaluation of an existing bearing layer.

2- Fitted to the domain of Hashyimiaboundary and the necessarily aquifer properties. The properties are

entered into the model in separate files such as transmissivity, specific yield, aquifer bed levels, initial

water levels, constant head boundaries (river, streams, drains)…etc

3- Calibrated and verified by using a WTL comparative between the numerical and theoretical solution of

Theis as shown in Figs. (5 &6).

IJSER




Fig.(5) Comparison Between Measured& Simulated WTL.

The Fig.(5) shows an acceptable matching between the modeled and the natural WTL with a difference ≤ 10% overall domain of the considered area as outlined by Al Assaf (1976) and Najah (2006) among others.

Fig.(6) Distance-Drawdown Comparison due to the Pumped Well at Node (22,33) of 500m3/day, (5.78L/s) productivity

Fig.(6) shows an acceptable coincidence of distance-drawdown comparison between the numerical and Theis solutions of the pumping well at nodal point (22,33).

Safe Yield (SY) Evaluation

IJSER




The process of the ground exploitation is carried out for all agricultural sectors to evaluate the safe

yields. Exploitation process may be developed in the model domain by assuming a certain small extraction

discharge and then is increased considerably according to a following constraint:-

(Max Drawdown ≤ 30% of Min bearing layer thickness in all meshes within the domain) as outline by

many worker in the aspect such as Al Assaf (1976) and Najah (2006).

Significantly the model has been run for a (9000days) to reach a steady state condition hoping to

obtain the perennial SY.The technical methodology for obtaining SY is begun by setting an initial discharge

and instantaneously observing the corresponding drawdown. The process is proceeded by increasing

withdrawal rate until the maximum allowable drawdown has been obtained (30% total bearing layer

thickness). A time-drawdown curves for all sectors are obtained and included in Fig.(7).

Fig. (7) Safe yield Exploitation

Whereas the final output safe yield values and the corresponding drawdowns forall sectors are listed in

Table (3) and shown by contoursin Figs.(8&9).

Table (3) Maximum Safe Yield Values

No. Agricultural

Sectors

Safe Yield

(m3/day/mesh)

Safe Yield

liters/Sec

Drawdown,

(m)

1 Jerboeya 120.00 1.39 1.721

2 Hashimiya 28.40 0.33 1.668

3 Niwedra 17.90 0.21 1.332

IJSER




4 Tebra 75.20 0.87 1.225

5 Sada 112.00 1.30 1.47

6 Zineyia 52.00 0.60 1.431

7 H3 37.90 0.44 1.528

8 Fayadhia 29.00 0.34 1.326

9 Bazul 36.30 0.42 1.054

10 Tyass - - -

Comment: Tyass sector is excluded from Table (3) since the unconfined bearing layer was previously

depleted by 118.65 mP

3P/day with a maximum drawdown of 4.25m

Fig.(8) Safe yield Contour Map, m P

3P/day/mesh

IJSER




Fig.(9) Maximum Allowable Drawdown Contour Map

V) Water Demand Estimation

a- Evapotranspiration Estimation

Blaney- Criddle method, Israelsen and Hansen (1962) presented the basic rule for estimating the

amount of Evapo-transpiration. The method easily takes into account the effects of meteorological

components namely as: number of hourly sunshine, temperature, elevation above sea level, speed of wind,

humidity, longitudes and latitudes.

The method is mathematically abbreviated in the following empirical forms:-

𝑼𝑼 = 𝒌𝒌𝒄𝒄𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝒐𝒐……………………………………………………(1)

𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝒐𝒐 = 𝒑𝒑 (𝟎𝟎.𝟒𝟒𝟒𝟒𝑬𝑬 + 𝟖𝟖.𝟏𝟏𝟒𝟒)……………………………………………………(2)

Whereas:-

ETо: is a potentialevapotranspiration, in (mm/day)

IJSER




P: is an average monthly day light percentage per year

T: is an average monthly temperature in (ºc)

Kc: crop coefficient

U: monthly consumptive use, mm/day of each crop.

The monthly evapotranspiration values are estimated and listed in Table (3).

b- Crop Coefficients Crop coefficient is severely affected by many factors such as crop type, stage of growth, soil moisture,

health of plants, and cultural practices. Anyhow Table (4) contain the estimated evapotranspiration and

crop coefficients (quoted from strategic study of water resources in Iraq, Italian Comp (2015) of local plants

in the region.

Table (3) Crop Coefficients and Evapotranspiration

month OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP

ET., mm 162 87 59 53 64 101 160 227 283 311 293 227 Barley 0.00 0.30 0.49 1.02 1.18 1.18 0.70 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Berseem 0.40 0.47 0.79 1.11 1.18 1.19 1.17 1.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Broad bean 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.51 0.92 1.19 1.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Onion/Garlic 0.77 1.01 1.06 1.06 1.07 1.06 0.91 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70

Wheat 0.00 0.71 0.89 1.11 1.18 1.20 0.84 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cotton 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 1.01 1.29 1.13 0.78 0.00

Cucumber 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.94 1.04 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.00

Eggplants 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.87 1.10 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Maize (autumn) 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.73 1.11 1.27

Okra 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.44 0.74 1.07 1.11 1.06 0.98

Sunflower 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.87 1.21 1.04 0.45 0.00 0.00

Tomato 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.96 1.20 1.02 0.00 0.00 0.00

Watermelon 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.83 1.03 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00

Alfalfa 0.77 1.02 0.83 0.51 0.53 0.80 0.99 1.05 0.94 0.99 0.97 1.06

Date palm 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 1.00 1.04 1.04 1.05 1.10 1.11 1.09 0.90

Grape 0.52 0.44 0.42 0.32 0.34 0.34 0.71 0.91 0.95 0.96 0.94 0.80

.

The estimation of WD is achieved separately for each sector. The results in m3/day/meshare listed in

Table (4). Table (4) Estimated WD of Hashyimia, m3/day/mesh

Months Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep.

IJSER




WD 184 124 92 92 136 303 554 773 695 535 463 344

Water Requirements Estimation

Water requirement (WR) comprises two constituents namely as; water demand (WD) and the urban

water, industrial and domestic purposes (WU). Accordingly:-

𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 = 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 + 𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 …………………………….(3)

It is worth to mention thatHashyimia Region is characterized by high population intensity. The final

statistical counting of Al Hashyimia population in (2015) is about 80 000 persons. The current

andmanaged urban water needs of all sectors are included in Table (5). The values represents the actual

drinking water production of the existing pumping treatment plants. Whereas column No. 4 shows the

estimated drinking water production basing upon the limitations (daily human needs of 150 Liters/day) of

World Health Organization (2016).

Table (5) Urban Water Needs (mP

3P/day)

sector

Population

No.

Design

Drinking

Water

Production

Suggested

Drinking

Water

Allocation

Jerboeya 5882 2400 882

Hashimiya 35294 14400 5297

Niwedra 8823 3600 1323

Tebra 3442 1200 516

Sada 2440 1200 366

Zineya 5882 2400 882

H3 7823 3600 1173

Fayadhiya 5882 2400 882

Bazul 2941 1200 441

Tyass 1591 240 238

Total 80000 32640 12000

Strategic Aquatic Wealth Management of Hashyimia Region

IJSER




Since surface and subsurface water management nowadays is extremely affected by political and

terroristic circumstances in Iraq, therefore the current study is subjectedto many constraints and

assumptions corresponding to administration instructions and limitations, they are;

I) Administration Constraints:-

1- The current SW releases should not be exceeded.

2- The population are obligated to local plant crops diversity relating the environment meteorologyas

presented in Table (3).

3- SW releases were not set for Tyass sector in the past.

4- Full investment of the area including the bore and uncultivated areas

II) Strategic Assumptions

The current integrated water management study depends thoroughly on the following priorities:

1- Full investment of rainfall since it is inventible water source.

2- Full or partial investment of groundwater exploitation provided that the safe yield should not be

exceeded.

3- Preferred that agricultural activities in Tyass sectorsto be thoroughly depended upon rainfall and

groundwater exploitation only.

4- Minimization of SW releases.

Conjunctive Use Model Structure

The conjunctive use model is applied for sectors by lunching the necessary meteorological and

hydrologic components such as rainfall, crop coefficient, no of meshes per each sector, mesh

dimensions, and evapotranspiration whereas the safe yield is obtained from the GW model as an output

data. The conjunctive use model then estimates the necessary integrated surface water under the light of

the previous assumptions and limitations. Briefly, the flowchart of Fig. (10) illustrates the algorithm

methodology of the required SW releases.

IJSER




Fig.(10) Conjunctive Use Model

Integratedwater Management

The aquatic management of the region is simply issued to satisfy the WRby critical complementary SW

sources and alsocomprising the bore areas within the study domain.

However, the water scarcity in WD of all sectors is satisfied depending upon the available releases of

local streams and distributaries as included in Table (6).

Table (6) presents a typical data necessary for an algorithmof a complimentary SW allocations used in

the conjunctive use model.

Table (6)WD, RF and SY, m3/day/mesh

Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep.

WD 184 124 92 92 136 303 554 773 695 535 463 344

RF 18.7 86.6 114.7 93.5 59.5 56.5 52.3 12.7 0 0 0 0.85

Jerboeyia

SY

120

Hashyimia 28.4

Niwedra 17.9

Tebra 75.2

Sada 112

Zineyia 52

H3 37.9

IJSER




Fayadhiya 29

Bazul 36.3

Tyass 118

SY :, SSW: in m3/day/mesh, RF: Rainfall

Table (7) Complementary SW Releases, m3/day/mesh

Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep.

Jerboeyia 45.3 0 0 0 0 126.5 381.7 640.3 575 415 343 223.15

Hashyimia 136.9 9 0 0 48.1 218.1 473.3 731.9 666.6 506.6 434.6 314.75

Niwedra 147.4 19.5 0 0 58.6 228.6 483.8 742.4 677.1 517.1 445.1 325.25

Tebra 90.1 0 0 0 1.3 171.3 426.5 685.1 619.8 459.8 387.8 267.95

Sada 53.3 0 0 0 0 134.5 389.7 648.3 583 423 351 231.15

Zineyia 113.3 0 0 0 24.5 194.5 449.7 708.3 643 483 411 291.15

H3 127.4 0 0 0 38.6 208.6 463.8 722.4 657.1 497.1 425.1 305.25

Fayadhiya 136.3 8.4 0 0 47.5 217.5 472.7 731.3 666 506 434 314.15

Bazul 129 1.1 0 0 40.2 210.2 465.4 724 658.7 498.7 426.7 306.85

Tyass 47.3 0 0 0 0 128.5 383.7 642.3 577 417 345 225.15

Table (8) Optimum SW Releases, m3/sec

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Jerboeya 0.05

1.02083E-

05

1.02083E-

05

1.02083E-

05

1.02083E-

05

0.156598

0.472496

0.792604

0.711772

0.513717

0.424592

0.276236

Hashimiya

0.397549

0.026196725

6.13079E-

05

6.13079E-

05

0.13974059

0.63341

1.374494

2.125451

1.935825

1.471195

1.262112

0.914075

Niwedra

0.182646

0.02417816

1.53125E-

05

1.53125E-

05

0.072627766

0.283278

0.599502

0.919938

0.839024

0.640764

0.551548

0.403039

Tebra

0.033548

5.97222E-

06

5.97222E-

06

5.97222E-

06

0.000490012

0.063787

0.158808

0.255095

0.230781

0.171207

0.144399

0.099774

IJSER




Results Discussion

I- In most months, the summation of safe yield and rainfall is no adequate to satisfy the WD therefore

it is complemented by surface water releases as shown in Table (7).

II- Consulting Table (6) one observes that sometime a summation of the SY andrainfall exceeds the

WD as on November to February.

III- It is encountered in many months that a summation of rainfall and safe yield is exceeded the WD,

correspondingly the groundwater extraction (withdrawal rate) is reduced to be less that the safe yield

provided that the extracting quantity satisfies the WD.

The optimum SW releases and GW exploitations are indicated inTable (8) and Table (9) respectively.

Whereas they are representedgraphically in Figs. (11& 12)respectively.

Table (9) Optimum Withdrawal Rate, L/sec

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR to SEP

Jerboeya 149 46 0 0 95 149 Hashimiya 82 82 82 82

Sada

0.009537

4.23611E-

06

4.23611E-

06

4.23611E-

06

4.23611E-

06

0.024071

0.069735

0.116008

0.104323

0.075694

0.06281

0.041365

Zineya 0.05

1.02083E-

05

1.02083E-

05

1.02083E-

05

0.010672245

0.084654

0.195713

0.308252

0.279834

0.210205

0.178871

0.126714

H3

0.066797

0.000135

0.000013

0.000013

0.02

0.1

0.24

0.37

0.34

0.26

0.22

0.16

Fayadhiya

0.082727

0.005

0.00001

0.00001

0.03

0.13

0.28

0.44

0.40

0.30

0.26

0.19

Bazul

0.075847

0.000651863

5.10417E-

06

5.10417E-

06

0.023641215

0.123595

0.273643

0.42569

0.387296

0.293222

0.250889

0.180422

Tyass

0.036039

2.75463E

-06

2.75463E

-06

2.75463E

-06

2.75463E

-06

0.09791

0.292352

0.489385

0.439631

0.317724

0.262866

0.171549

Total 0.99 0.056 0.00014 0.00014 0.29 1.7 3.96 6.25 5.68 4.26 3.62 2.564

Total

Average 2.45 IJSER




Niwedra 22 22 22 22 Tebra 28 13 28 28 Sada 20 7 13 20

Zineya 23 16 23 23 H3 20 20 20 20

Fayadhiya 18 18 18 18 Bazul 21 21 15 21 Tyass 90 28 58 90

Fig.(11) Optimum Monthly SW Releases

Fig.(12) Optimum withdrawal Rates

Discussion of Strategic Management

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP

SW, c

umce

s

Jerboeya Hashimiya Niwedra Tebra Sada Zineya

H3 Fayadhiya Bazul Tyass Total

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

With

draw

al,L

/sec

Sectors

Oct

Nov

Feb

Feb to Sep

IJSER




Operating scheduling of Table (8) reveals the followings:

1- The WD for agricultural purposes and the urban water requirements UWR are satisfied by a rainfall,

Withdrawal rates and even occasionally by the complementary SW releases.

2- Although the total average SW releases of 2.45Table (8) cumces are less than the actual releases

of 3.76 cumcesshown in Table (1), all bore lands are cultivated which constitutes52% of the whole

area. Table (9) shows the cultivated bore lands of the true optimum operating policy. For instance;

the bore lands percentage 54%, 81% and 45% forJerboeyia, Hashyimia and Niwedra sectors

respectively whereas the total bore area percentage is 52%. Fig. (12) shows the average total SW

releases

Table (9) Bore Area Percentage

Sector No. of Total

meshes

No. of Actual Current

Cultivated Meshes

Bore Land

Percentage

Jerboeyia 106.95 49.31 54

Hashyimia 250.9 46.66 81

Niwedra 107.06 58.89 45

Tebra 32.17 31.79 1.2

Sada 15.46 14.25 8

Zineyia 37.6 35.38 6

H3 45.3 41.92 7.5

Fayadhiya 52.44 52.01 1

Bazul 50.8 34.16 33

Tyass 65.83 0 90

Total 764.51 364.37 52

Based on Table (1)`

IJSER




Fig.(12) Current,Optimumand Total Releases

3- The referenced withdrawal rates of Table (8) are evitable quantities and frequently equal or less

than the safe yields of the bearing layer. This is occasionally occurred since the rainfall amount in

addition to thesafe yield extraction exceeds the total WR in many sectors; for instance the safe yield

which is obtained from the mathematical model is 120m3/day in Jerboeyia sector is reduced to 149,

46, 0, 0, 95 L/sec on Oct, Nov, Dec, Jan and Feb respectively.

4- The current GW exploitationof Hashyimia Region is an active refreshment process for existing old

saline unconfined bearing layer. This permanent renewing process of groundwater storage may no

longer reduce both groundwater and soil salinity in near future.

5- The withdrawal rates listed in Table (9) in liter/sec are a maximum rates of GW exploitation and

should not be exceeded to avoid an aquifer depletion and environmental harmful consequences.

6- Theintegral surface and subsurface management should be constrained to a systematic operating

scheduling, pumping well productivities and even the wells number in a specified sector. In addition

specifying an agented forces and administration control for protective purposes.

A Feasible Study

The feasibility of the current management pours in several coordinates among them are:-

I- Total SW Losses: Table(8) presents that the current average total SW releases of2.45

cumces are needed to cultivate 100%% of Hashyimia Region including Tyass sectorwhereas

3.76 3.76 3.76 3.76 3.76 3.76 3.76 3.76 3.76 3.76 3.76 3.76

0.99

0.056 0 00.3

1.7

3.966

6.255.67

4.253.62

2.56

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP

SW, C

umce

s

Current optimum Total

IJSER




the actualSW releases decided by the directorate of water resources are 3.76 cumces

without Tyass sector to cultivate 48% of Hashyimia region. That means under the light of the

current management the real releases needed to vegetate 48% of Hashyimia Region = 0.48

* 2.45cumces = 1.176cumces, therefore:-

Total SW Losses = 3.76 – 1.176 = 2.584cumces = 81.5mcm/ year.

These amounts of surface water are truly going continuously to fill drains and penetrating to the

unconfinedlayer causing a groundwater rise(although Tyass sector allocation was ignored) which

accompanied with an extreme bad effects on the environments and on the hydrology of the

region, among these effects; are the soil water logging, soil salinity corresponding to evaporation

process, discrepancy in a seasonal plant crop productivity which reflecting on the continuous

loses in the agricultural economy, full capacity operation of irrigation and drainage networks, and

the contaminant transport from the landfill area (at a time the Iraq country suffer a sharp scarcity

in different water resources).

II- Total SW Saving:

Briefly, the current management study reveals that the total saved SW is:-

3.76 cumces- 2.45 cumces = 1 .31cumces = 41 .31216mcm/ year, if the scenario of general

directorate of water resources is depended with full use of both the rainfall and GW exploitation.

III- Increasing of Agricultural Areas:

Although the optimum average total releases of 2.45 cumces shown in Table (8) is less than the

real releases of water resources directorate by 1.31 cumces, it allows the populations increase the

vegetated areas up to100%.

Conclusions:

The following points are concluded:

1- Corresponding to the current optimum and integrated water requirements management encourages

the opposite population migration from Tyass sectors and other lands.

2- Although the total average SW releases of the Directorate of water resources is 3.76 cumces a 52%

of the total area is left uncultivated.

IJSER




3- Although the current total average SWR2.45 cumces < than the true releases by 35%, all the areas

of the region are cultivated.

4- The total SW losses are 81.5mcm/ year due to the directorate of water resources releases.

References: 1. Prickett, T.A., and. Lonngquist, C. G., (1971), “Selected Digital Computer Techniques for Groundwater

Resource Evaluation”, (Illinois State Water Survey Bulletin 55.) 62 pp. 2. A Johaaesburh World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), A/ Conf. 199/20.

http://www.johannesburgsummit.org. February 21, 2005. 3. Merrey D. J., Drechsel P., Penning de Vries, F.W.T. & Sally H., "INTEGRATING ‘LIVELIHOODS’ INTO

INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT: TAKING THE INTEGRATION PARADIGM TO

ITS LOGICAL NEXT STEP FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES"Private Bag X813, 0127 Silverton,

Pretoria, South Africa. Published in Regional Environmental Change Journal,Vol.5,issue 4, pp.197-

204.(2005)

4. Silva-Hidalgo H., Ignacio R. Martín D., María T., and Alfredo G., "Mathematical Modelling for the

Integrated Management of Water Resources in Hydrological Basins" , water resources

management,Volume 23, Issue 4, pp. 721-730, (2008)

5. Evan G.R. Davies a, Slobodan P. Simonovic, "Global water resources modeling with an integrated

model of the social–economic–environmental system",Advances in Water Resources, , Volume

34, Issue 6, pp. 684-700, (2011).

6. Najah M. L., "Optimum Management of Surface and Subsurface water of Al Adhiam Basin" A phd.

Thesis submitted to the college of Eng. Unv. Of Baghdad.(2006).

7. AL Assaf, S. A., (1976), “Application of Computer Technique to Groundwater Flow Problems”, Dpt. of

Geology, Univ. College London.

IJSER


http://link.springer.com/journal/11269/23/4/page/1

http://link.springer.com/journal/11269/23/4/page/1



IJSER


sustainable management of surface & subsurface water of ... › researchpaper ›...

Documents